Sunday, March 29, 2026
Motivations
Speaking of evidence, I have seen no evidence that Boasberg even referred to the issue before him, i.e., the Fed’s building boondoggle. The evidence presented to the grand jury was sufficient to cause them to issue the subpoenas, which is what counts. This is an investigation, not a prosecution.
And what is the point of Boasberg’s reference to conflicting views as to interest rates? They have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand, the Fed’s building renovation. Jerome Powell is on his way out as the Fed Chairman. He will be gone in two months, so Boasberg’s theory makes little sense.
This is one of many instances of left-wing judges imputing invidious motives to the Trump administration, and ruling on that basis. But such speculation as to motives, inspired by Democratic Party talking points, is improper.
Another instance occurred just a few days ago, when a Democratic Party district court judge ruled that the Department of Homeland Security may not terminate the “Temporary Protected Status” of Haitian immigrants, which has been in effect since an earthquake in 2010. Obviously, that judge’s party wants the “temporary” status to be permanent. The judge’s rationale was that the DHS’s decision manifested an animus by President Trump and Secretary Noem against immigrants “of color.” Again, an inflammatory but wholly irrelevant consideration.
Any time a judge says that the Trump administration lacks the power to do something that would be perfectly acceptable if the president were a Democrat, based on the Trump administration’s alleged motivations, that judge is wrong and is acting as a partisan hack. I think the general public would be astonished at how often that happens.
Trump and the GOP Senators need to ram through as many ultraconservative, hyperpartisan judges as possible between now and next January.
